FoxHastings said: ↑ Don't you understand that an abortion due to rape is exactly the same as an abortion due to consensual sex or don't you want to admit it? The PROCEDURES and OUTCOMES of the abortions are the SAME. Whether it's a fetus due to rape or a fetus due to consensual sex they both die.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Here's your answer : FORCING a woman to gestate is "doing things to her body"...without her consent Who TF are YOU to tell me what I would say.... ...and yes, women were forced to gestate prior to safe abortions...why TF wouldn't I say that?? NOW, can you address what was in the post of mine you quoted? Or just keep dancing your silly "get around it" dance..
Meaningless claptrap that I don't care to wade through... 23 weeks is the legal limit....what TF don't you get about that? So why don't you SAY what you DID ask??? WTF ! I have and you are arguing as an Anti-Choicer. YES YOU DID. IF you want the fetus to have rights then You to want fetuses to have MORE rights than anyone else...the right to use another's body to sustain their lives. The right to harm another without their consent... YES, you do IF you insist the fetus has rights....and women should be denied abortion. No, you are confused, that would be YOU...YOU are the one who thinks a fetus has more rights and can force someone else to use their body to sustain their lives... At birth a fetus becomes a legal person , not before. It has no rights until birth.. I have made that quite clear
HERE is my words YOU QUOTED: If it's with a minor (daughter, sister) it's a crime...it's rape... DUH, "minor" is UNDERAGE..DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Sex with a minor is considered rape Now that was one of your silly little segues into nothingness...care to try the topic ?
Why did you post this ? It has nothing to do with the FACT that it's still a legal medical procedure. what TH ???
"Health care" has NOTHING to do with bodily autonomy....the right to have an abortion whether covered by health care or not, that is irrelevant...
Hi Derideo, I missed this post, as I was distracted by the other rather belligerent gentleman. But he pointed this out so now I've spotted it. Its a much better response, so thank you for it. I don't care about your 14th Amendment. I don't live in your country, and even if I did, I would not consider the law or even the constitution when determining what should be and what should not be, morally speaking. I do care about what you personally think should be the case. Correct me if I am wrong, but I trust you don't simply feels something is moral because it is the current state of the law. That's some reasoning, so much more relevant than the stuff about the laws etc. On this reasoning about future physical and mental problems in the children, would you apply that same sort of eugenics argument to not just allow but also encourage the abortion of the blind, deaf, retarded, etc, or extreme birth defects? Or do you stop at saying its good grounds to allow them to be aborted? Would you want to consider any other factors? Such as if the unborn has any cognition or is self aware, if the unborn can sense pain, etc? That's what I'm looking to explore. Good point. Would you consider such incarceration as worse than death though? That's the question I was asking in my initial post above. You have answered it as being the point of viability, or 24 weeks (or 23?). I'm undecided on this issue, but I don't think I'd want to only consider viability. I certainly wouldn't put it at conception. It would have to be the point at which I came to consider the unborn as my moral equal. I'm undecided on exactly when that should be. I strongly disagree with the other gentleman (and apparently your law) saying the unborn never should have equal rights to the host mother. A simplistic approach ignoring these complexities would be saying viability is all that should matter, or dismissing the unborn as one who should have no rights before birth.
A fetus has NO rights. It has PROTECTIONS after viability. LOL, you'll have to explain how a fetus can be your "moral equal"... Hey, let's give the fetus exactly the same rights the woman it's in has. (Not all pregnant women are mothers) She has the right to defend herself from harm like anyone else. She has the right to self defense. The fetus is causing her harm. She can save herself anyway she can up to and including killing the attacker.... The fetus has no right to harm another or use their body to sustain their life...just like EVERYONE ELSE.
Because you were surprised why I care about an issue in a country other than my own. Do you still think that it's odd?
You keep repeating this as if that will make it moral. An unborn is definitely my equal at later stages of development. I think those stages are after your viability point, so I don't think we actually have any disagreement in practice, but we seem to in principle. I find it crazy to call a freshly fertilized egg my equal. I equally call it crazy to call a child seconds before birth not my equal, morally speaking. There you go. Now you are making an actual moral argument. Bravo. Self defence is a good point. You could even say she has been invaded by a parasite that is doing her significant harm, especially if she was raped. If she wasn't raped, I think you may have to factor in the fact that she had something to do with putting the unborn in its predicament, knowing this could happen, and that the unborn has arrived there through no choice of his/her own. So I can drop you off that cliff and have no moral responsibility to put you down safely after I've lifted you up and dangled you over it?
I can't think of any secular reason to. And the "life begins at conception" mantra makes no sense. Life is a continuous process that began millions of years ago.
FoxHastings said: ↑ A fetus has NO rights. It has PROTECTIONS after viability. No, I repeat it because it's a fact and I never mentioned "moral"....that's a word you keep bringing up. 'fraid you'll have to get over the idea that your "morals" are everyone's morals...they aren't. No, I'm stating facts... Uh, pregnancy doesn't cause anymore harm if the woman was raped or had consensual sex... Consent to one act (having sex) is not consent to any other act (pregnancy). The unborn arrived through NO choice by anyone...a woman can't choose to get pregnant, she either does or doesn't. you'll have to get over the idea that your "morals" are everyone's morals...they aren't. ...and "morals" aren't law and facts...just someone's idea of what they want morals to be.. If one is causing another one harm they are free to throw them over a cliff to escape the harm I'd be interested to know what you want the fetus to have the right to do....
Don't know that there are good religious reasons either when comes down to it .. Secular is no contest.
There are plenty of examples where legislating morality has not ended well for those that promoted it. Prohibition and DOMA are classic examples. The Canadian approach is my own preference which is that abortion is deemed to be a MEDICAL issue that is between the woman and her doctor. Those are the ONLY parties involved and between them they make a choice that is optimal given the circumstances that relevant to that situation. IOW's INDIVIDUALS get to choose their own morality WITHOUT any outside imposition one way or the other. My personal position is that of QUALITY of life as being more important than QUANTITY. A mother with 3 children who is stretched to the limit having a 4th child will harm the quality of life for her and the other 3 kids. A teenager who has not finished high school has a different decision as does a couple wanting to start a family discovering that the fetus has a congenital condition such as cystic fibrosis. To reiterate my OWN position is to always opt for quality of life but I would never presume to make that decision for anyone else. There is a great deal of misinformation regarding the sense of pain that a fetus can feel. In order to sense pain there needs to be sufficient neural development which only begins at the end of the 2nd trimester. However it is IMPORTANT to note that even in a 3rd trimester abortion where pain and/or cognition can be deemed to be present there will be no pain or awareness during the abortion procedure because of ANESTHESIA. Just like when a dentist numbs a tooth to be drilled/removed the anesthetic numbs the surrounding area like the tongue. lips and facial muscles too. Surgical abortion procedures inject directly into the cervix which is at the base of the uterus. The fetus is connected to the uterus via the placenta. The amount of anesthesia is sufficient to numb the entire body of the fetus ergo there is no pain during a surgical abortion. The point I am trying to make is opposite of that. A female sociopathic serial killer is sentenced to incarceration for life but her lawyer argues that she is pregnant and incarceration "violates the rights" of the fetus therefore this murderer must be allowed to roam around free to kill until after she gives birth. That is the potential dilemma and while it is unlikely to ever be that drastic it does mean that people who should be locked up are not because of the "rights" that you want to grant to the fetus. Where do you draw the line? As I mentioned in my prior post the decision is an INDIVIDUAL one where ONLY the woman can CHOOSE what rights she wants to grant to her fetus. Her morality is all that matters. Neither you nor I nor anyone else gets to IMPOSE their morality on HER fetus. So yes, YOU get to make up YOUR own mind as to your OWN morality on this issue but you do NOT get to impose your morality on anyone else. Not really, it is more of a PRAGMATIC approach which is what the SCOTUS opted for in their RvW decision. They recognized that there were different factions that all needed to be considered and balanced. They applied the STANDARD of Individual rights over States rights over whatever "right to life" moralists may have. Yes, it is a COMPROMISE and it works. Personally I would prefer the Canadian option but that is NOT how things work here in America.
